American Screen Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 87 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

AMERICAN SCREEN PRODUCTS COMPANY 87
and Robert Hartman for any loss of pay suffered by them as a
result of the discrimination practices against them.
CARPENTERS AND MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION No. 1337,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans 13, Louisiana, Telephone Number, 529-2411, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
American Screen Products Company and International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-45,98. August
13, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 23, 1962, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
IIn the absence of exceptions by the General Counsel, we adopt pro forma the Trial
Examiner ' s refusal to find the additional violations of Section 8(a) (1) which were litigated
at the hearing.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on November 6, 1961 , by the International Association of
Machinists , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , and an amended charge filed on
138 NLRB No. 7.
C
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 13, 1961, by said Union, the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for the Thirteenth Region on December 19, 1961, issued a com-
plaint against American Screen Products Company, herein referred to as Respond-
ent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer, as amended at the hearing,
Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission
of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker
at Pontiac, Illinois, on February 13, 1962. All parties were represented at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence,
to present oral argument, and to file briefs with me thereafter. The parties waived
oral argument and in lieu thereof filed briefs with me.
Upon consideration of the entire record and briefs of the parties, and upon my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a Florida corporation main-
taining a place of business at Chatsworth, Illinois, and at various places in the
States of Florida and California where it engages in the manufacture and distribu-
tion of aluminum fabricated products and other related products. During the
calendar year 1960, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations
manufactured and distributed aluminum fabricated products valued in excess of
$50,000 from its place of business and facilities in the State of Illinois directly to
States of the United States other than the State of Illinois; and during the same
period purchased and received at its place of business in the State of Illinois, mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States of the United States other than
the State of Illinois . Respondent concedes and I accordingly find upon these facts
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, is admitted by Respondent to
be a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The General Counsel contends, in substance, that on September 29, 1961, Re-
spondent laid off employee Melvin Hull because of his known position of leadership
in the organizational efforts of the Union at the Chatsworth, Illinois, plant. Further,
the General Counsel asserts that during the 5-day period between Monday, Septem-
ber 25, 1961, when the union organizational efforts commenced at the plant and
Friday, September 29, when the layoff of Hull and 32 other employees became effec-
tive, Respondent, through Supervisor Virkler, violated its employees' Section 7 rights
by curtailing employee discussion of the Union at the plant during nonworking time
and threatened employees with layoffs, discharge, and other reprisals if the Union
succeeded in its organizational efforts.'
Respondent denies the contentions of the General Counsel relating to Virkler's
alleged violative conduct and further stresses that Hull was merely 1 of 33 employees
laid off on September 29 as part of a general reduction in force. It asserts further
that Hull was selected for layoff before his union activities became known to it.
Additionally, Respondent contends that Hull's layoff was predicated solely upon
managerial judgments unrelated in any respect to his union activity.
A. The organizational activities
On Saturday , September 23, 1961 , a union organizational meeting was held at
the home of employee Spencer Sandquist and was attended by Sandquist, Melvin
Hull, the alleged discriminatee herein, two other employees of Respondent and Union
Organizer Hammond. Hull had contacted Hammond and had arranged the meet-
1 That portion of the complaint relating to this latter phase of the General Counsel's case
specifies a period "on or about September 15." I have considered all of the General
Counsel's evidence relating to Virkler's alleged violative conduct, as it was adduced with-
out objection , and as the issue was fully litigated and Respondent suffered no surprise at
the hearing See Pacific Milla, 91 NLRB 60 , 61 ; cf. Haynee Stellite Company, Division of
Union Carbide Corporation , 136 NLRB 95.
AMERICAN SCREEN PRODUCTS COMPANY 89
ing. At the meeting union authorization cards, leaflets, and badges were distributed
to the four employees present. Thereafter, the following Monday, September 25,
employee Hull wore a large, white committeeman button at the plant as he worked.
During the morning Hull was approached in the plant by Supervisor Abergast who
hooked his finger under the button and in a joking manner asked Hull what it was.2
Hull responded by saying, "I don't know, I can't read either." Abergast laughed and
walked away? Later in the same day Hull, who was still wearing the committee-
man badge, observed Personnel Manager Lee approach him and "walk in almost a
complete circle around [him]." Lee looked at Hull as he did so.
Hull devoted his entire lunch period on Monday, September 25, to securing
employees' signatures on union authorization cards, and was similarly active during
the same period the following day. The lunch hour card-signing activities were car-
ried on at Hull's workbench in the plant. He also solicited signatures after work
on Monday, September 25. Although Sandquist and two other employees, Aldrich
and Eshelman, also secured employee signatures, Hull appears to have been the
most active.4
During the lunch period on Monday, September 25, Leadman Honneger 5 observed
the card-signing activity at Hull's workbench and was asked by Superintendent of
Operations Postlewaite "if the men had been congregating around Mel Hull's bench."
Honneger said that they had been and "that they were signing union cards." 6 In
addition, employee Sandquist credibly testified without contradiction that on Sep-
tember 25 and 26, Foreman Sadler appeared to more carefully observe his [Sand-
quist's] movements throughout the plant in pursuit of his assigned duties, and to
eavesdrop on Sandquist's conversations with fellow employees.
From the foregoing it is clear and I find that on Monday, September 25, Respond-
ent learned of the organizational efforts of its employees and of Melvin Hull's
prominent part therein. Indeed, Respondent does not dispute the conclusiveness of
the evidence in this respect. However, it emphasizes that it had no knowledge of any
union activity on the part of its employees prior thereto. In view of the total absence
of evidence indicating Respondent had knowledge of Hull's part in contacting Union
Organizer Hammond to arrange the September 23 organizational meeting, or that it
had knowledge of the meeting itself, I conclude and find that Respondent first be-
came aware of employee organizational activity on the morning of September 25
and was not prior to that time aware of Hull's adherence to or activity in or on
behalf of the Union.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
After management became aware of the organizational efforts of its employees,
Supervisor Virkler engaged in several conversations with employees. He concedes
that he endeavored to get individual employees to express themselves "as to whether
(they] thought the Company was fair in all respects," and on occasions "may have
led" employees into a discussion of the Union.7
On an occasion occurring sometime between noon on September 25 when union
authorization cards and buttons had been distributed to rank-and-file employees and
September 29 when employee layoffs occurred, Virkler approached a group of four
employees, including employees Marshall Burgess and John Rapp. The incident
took place in the plant during working hours and after the morning "break," while
the employees were discussing the Union and the wearing of union buttons. Virkler
told the group of employees that if they "didn't quit horsing around and quit talk-
ing about [the Union and union buttons] they would be canned," and that he
"didn't want to hear anymore about it at any time." 8 On another occasion during
the 5-day period in question and during an afternoon "break" or rest period, Super-
2 The supervisory status of Abergast, Personnel Manager Lee, Foreman Sadler, and
Superintendent of Operations Postlewalte was either admitted in the answer or stipulated
by the parties.
8 Hull testified that he and Abergast were "very friendly."
' The foregoing is predicated upon the undisputed testimony of Hull.
5 Evidence was adduced at the hearing bearing on the alleged supervisory status of
Honneger. While in my view of the case his status is of little decisional importance, I
conclude and find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, notwithstanding a very circumscribed authority to routinely assign and transfer em-
ployees to a specified class of uncomplicated tasks.
8 The undisputed testimony of Honneger
7 The General Counsel does not allege this precise conduct to be violative and I make
no finding that it was.
8 The credited testimony of Marshall Burgess.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visor Virkler approached a group of employees, including Marshall Burgess and
John Rapp, as they discussed the wearing of union buttons and other matters relat-
ing to the Union. He told them that anyone wearing a union button would be
sent home and admonished the employees that they "should not talk union during
working hours or any other time," including "break time." 9 [Emphasis supplied.]
To the extent that Supervisor Virkler's rebuke of the employees during the first-
mentioned incident constituted an order to devote full attention to their work, he
was acting entirely within the scope of his supervisory prerogatives and did not
infringe upon legitimate, protected rights of employees.10 However, his remark was
more than a mere legitimate disciplinary rebuke, and was, in fact, an incisive
admonition against any discussion at all-of the Union at the plant. This prohibition
was further impressed upon the employees when Virkler, in effect, orally promul-
gated a broad rule against discussion of the Union, by prohibiting such discussions
during nonworking time as well as working time. Such a rule is presumptively
invalid. No showing is here present of special circumstances necessitating the rule.
I find that through Virkler's statements curtailing the employee discussion of the
Union, Respondent interfered with protected rights of employees and thereby
violated the Act.ii Further, in prohibiting the wearing of union buttons under
threat of "being sent home" Virkler likewise interfered with employees' Section 7
rights and violated the Act.12 Not present were the special circumstances which
have been found to justify the promulgation of such a rule.13
Also, during the pertinent 5-day period, Virkler engaged in another conversation
with employee John Rapp. Virkler told Rapp that "before a union would enter
the factory . they would close their doors." 14 I find this statement violative of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. i5
On still another occasion during the period in question and while employees
Burgess and Rapp were deciding whether or not to sign authorization cards, Virkler
spoke with them at or near their work desks where Virkler was performing work.
Virkler told the two employees that "if they did sign for it [the Union] . . . there
would be a lot of layoffs and a lot of strikes and it would cost [them] more money
in the long run than it would if [they] didn't have it." 16
I do not find in this statement a threat that the Respondent would use its economic
power to retaliate against the employees. Rather, I find it constitutes a mere pre-
diction of what might be expected to result from unionization of the plant.17
Also during the organizational campaign, Virkler and employee Hull as they
worked together engaged in a conversation relating to the Union. Virkler remarked
that Hull "Could be a Communist if [he] wanted to be," that "That's all the Unions
are." 18 I find this was a mere statement of opinion unaccompanied by threat or
coercion and therefore protected by Section 8(c) of the Act.19
6 The credited testimony of John Rapp and Marshall Burgess. My conclusion that the
employees were admonished on this occasion that they could not discuss the Union on
"break time" is based upon the credited testimony of Burgess.
10 See Threads-Incorporated, 124 NLRB 968, 976-977
11 Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd 289 F. 2d 177 (C.A. 5) ; see
The Bendix Corporation, Research Laboratories Division, 131 NLRB 599 , 605-606; ef.
Becker-Durham, use, 130 NLRB 1356; Midwestern Instrument, Inc, 131 NLRB 1026.
12 Kimble Glass Company, 113 NLRB 577, enfd 230 F. 2d 484 (C.A. 6) ; Republic
Aviation Corporation v N L R B., 324 US 793, 802; Spielman Motor Sales, Inc, 127
NLRB 322; Floridan Hotel of Tampa , Inc, 130 NLRB 1105
Is See Nebraska Bag Processing Company, 122 NLRB 654, 656, footnote 8; Kimble Glass
Company, supra; cf Boeing Airplane Company v NLRB., 217 F 2d 369 (C.A. 9) ;
Caterpillar Tractor Company, a Corporation v. N L.R.B., 230 F. 2d 357 (C A. 7)
14 The credited testimony of Rapp Virkler's denial is not credited
is See Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc, 131 NLRB 132, 137; Sunshine Biscuits, Inc
v. N L R B , 274 F. 2d 738, 740 (C A. 7) ; N L.R.B. v Irving Taitel, et al , d/b/a I Taitel
and Son, 261 F. 2d 1, 4 (C.A 7).
is The credited testimony of Burgess I do not credit the denial of Virkler.
17 Carolina Mirror Corporation, 123 NLRB 1712, 1714.
is Hull testified credibly concerning this incident, and although there existed in Sep-
tember 1961, less than a harmonious relationship between Hull and Virkler, Hull's hos-
tility toward Virkler was not so manifest as he testified as to render unbelievable his
testimony, which stands uncontroverted in the record.
Is See Grdnd Central Aircraft Co, Inc, 103 NLRB 1114, 1118, enfd 216 F 2d 572
(CA. 9) ; Union Screw Products, a Partnership, 78 NLRB 1107.
AMERICAN SCREEN PRODUCTS COMPANY 91
C. The alleged discriminatory layoff of Melvin Hull
The Chatsworth, Illinois, plant of Respondent-the only plant here involved-
commenced operations in early 1953. Until September 1, 1961, plant tool and die
work as well as machine maintenance was performed by employees in the tool and
maintenance department, which in late August 1961 had a complement of nine
employees.
In mid-1961, in order to correct its unfavorable financial posture, Respondent
recognized a need to reduce overhead, of which indirect labor costs were a part,
To this end, it decided to withdraw from the weaving phase of its operation and
to farm out its major tool and die work. Accordingly, a decision was made to
sell its 30 weaving looms and other weaving equipment. Further, in August, 1961,
Superintendent of Operations Postlewaite informed then Foreman Hoffman (at the
time of the hearing a rank-and-file employee in the maintenance department) of
the plan to convert to "strictly maintenance." They together discussed the immedi-
ate layoff of some tool and maintenance department employees. Thereafter, on
September 1, Respondent's decision to farm out its tool and die work and to operate
the department solely as a maintenance department was announced by Superin-
tendent Postlewaite to the tool and maintenance deparment employees.20 As a
result on September 1, two employees, Haberkorn and Zea, were laid off.2i
Subsequently, on Thursday, September 21, at a staff meeting attended by Respond-
ent's managerial personnel, the earlier retrenchment decision was implemented by a
determination to effect a substantial reduction in force.22 Following the staff meet-
ing, Personnel Manager Lee and General Foreman Dale Kemmell, assisted by
Superintendent of Operations Postlewhaite, who participated in part of the delibera-
tions, devoted the balance of Thursday, September 21, and the entire day of Friday,
September 22, to selecting the employees to be laid off. After ascertaining total
manpower needs, individual employees were selected for retention or layoff by a
criteria encompassing employee (1) ability, (2) physical fitness, and (3) plant
hiring date or seniority. Plant seniority became significant only in the event the
ability and physical fitness of two or more employees were considered equal. Under
established practice, an employee would be considered for transfer to another depart-
ment in lieu of layoff only if the employee had formerly been in a department where
a vacancy existed 23
At the close of business Friday, September 22, the layoff deliberations were com-
pleted and 33 employees to be laid off had been selected and their names recorded
on a list. In accordance with the practice followed in previous layoffs, Personnel
Manager Lee presented the list of names to his secretary who prepared layoff notices.
The list was not transmitted to her at the end of the workday on Friday, September
22, because she had left the company premises for the day. The list was presented
to her on Monday morning, but because of her absence from the office during a
portion of the day Monday, preparation of layoff notices was not completed until
Tuesday morning, September 26. Later that day the notices were given to the
various foremen for distribution to the employees.24
The Layoff of Melvin Hull
At the completion of work on Tuesday, September 26, Leadman Honneger handed
Hull an envelope containing his layoff notice and commented, "I never thought you
would get this." The notice informed Hull that his layoff would become effective
on Friday, September 29. He was one of two maintenance department employees
laid off. Hull has not been employed by Respondent since September 29.
"The department was thereafter designated as the maintenance department
21 The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Lee, Postlewaite,
and Hoffman.
22Staff meeting was attended by Vice President Petry, Industrial Engineer and Per-
sonnel Manager Lee, Superintendent of Operations Postlewaite, Supervisor of Administra-
tive Services Johnson, and Kellerman of the purchasing department
23 Employee Melvin Hull had been employed in no other department but tool and
maintenance
24 The undisputed and credited testimony of Personnel Manager Lee and Superintendent
of Operations Postlewaite. I credit them based partly upon my observation of their de-
meanor as they testified I credit Lee's undisputed testimony that be gave the layoff list
to his secretary on Monday morning
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent asserts that Hull was laid off as a result of a plantwide reduction
in force involving a total of 33 employees rendered necessary by economic con-
ditions requiring reorganization and retrenchment.
The General Counsel, on the other hand, while not challenging the legitimacy of
the September 29 reduction in force per se, contends that Hull was selected for and
included in the layoff because of his known leadership and activity in stimulating
union adherence among his fellow employees.
In order to find merit in the General Counsel's position, one of two basic findings
is required, either that (1) knowledge of Hull's union activity came into Respond-
ent's possession before the layoff selections were consummated on Thursday and
Friday or (2) after learning of Hull's union propensities on Monday, the layoff list
was amended to include Hull.
As found above, the evidence does not warrant a determination favorable to the
General Counsel on the first alternative. Mere suspicion supports the second.
The General Counsel introduced no evidence to contradict the testimony of Lee
either as to the list's completion on Friday or its submission to his secretary on
Monday morning. Neither did the General Counsel adduce direct evidence that
the layoff selections were amended on Monday or Tuesday to include Hull when
his union activities became known. Rather, without directly meeting this issue,
the General Counsel would have as much inferred, relying in support of such
inference upon evidence challenging the necessity and legitimacy of Hull 's layoff in
view of (a) the simultaneous retention of Glenn Reinagle , an employee in the
General Counsel's view possessed of ability inferior to Hull, (b) the subsequent
and substantial use of employee Aldrich in the performance of "maintenance" duties,
and (c ) the increased performance of machine maintenance by production employees
after September 29.
In regard to the first contention, Ralph Hoffman, the former supervisor of both
Reinagle and Hull, testified that in his opinion Hull was the superior "all-around
man." But Hoffman was not consulted in connection with the September 29 layoff
and it is undisputed that the responsibility for the selection of Hull was Plant Super-
intendent Postlewaite 's. Postlewaite testified credibly that he considered Reinagle's
maintenance skills more diverse and his ability as a machine operator and on pre-
cision work superior to Hull's. The testimony of a generally credible witness
responsible for the action questioned is entitled to be given weight and is not to
be ignored or discarded merely because a different individual not endowed with
advisory capacity or charged with ultimate decisional responsibility renders a differ-
ent evaluation . Moreover, Postlewaite 's judgment of Reinagle and Hull finds record
support in the testimony of Robert Abergast, supervisor of quality control and
former planning engineer.
Although I have carefully considered the General Counsel's record evidence and
the contentions raised in his brief, there is, in my opinion , insufficient evidence to
suggest that Postlewaite's evaluation of the comparative potential contribution of
Reinagle and Hull to the reconstituted maintenance department was so faulty and
so at odds with objective fact as to reflect convincingly upon Postlewaite's motive
in selecting Hull rather than Reinagle for layoff. The mere showing that Hull
may have been arguendo a more skilled employee than Reinagle, is not, alone,
sufficient to overcome the credible testimony of Postlewaite and Lee that Hull's
selection for layoff was bona fide and made without management 's knowledge or
cognizance of his union activities.
Nor is the General Counsel's case substantially strengthened by the testimony of
Hoffman that in August when the September I layoffs were being discussed, Reinagle
was considered for transfer back to the final assembly department where he formerly
worked, while Hull was not mentioned for layoff. This was as matter given con-
sideration but never acted upon. It is clear from the record that the discussion in
question was in context of the September 1 action and did not bear upon the sub-
sequent plantwide reduction in force. On the record before me it would require a
remarkable exercise of psychic power on the part of a Trial Examiner to discern
whether the managerial considerations valid in regards to the comparatively isolated
and minor reduction in force in the maintenance department on September 1 would
be equally valid and carry over to determinations made in the context of a later
plantwide reorganization involving the layoff of 33 employees.
Also unconvincing is the General Counsel's assertion that Hull's layoff was un-
necessary and discriminatory as evidenced by employee Aldrich's assignment to
"maintenance" work after September 29. The "maintenance" work performed by
Aldrich-a former loom department employee-after September appears to partake
principally of "helpers" work not unlike that performed by a common laborer. It is
AMERICAN SCREEN PRODUCTS COMPANY 93
not the type of maintenance work previously preformed by Hull. Aldrich is not
shown to be formally assigned to the maintenance department and performs various
miscellaneous tasks in other plant departments.
Likewise, that production employees, as contended by the General Counsel, have
performed after September 29, more maintenance work on their own machines is
of slight significance, being totally consistent with Respondent's avowed and intended
purpose of reducing indirect costs through a reduction in force.
The burden is upon the General Counsel to sustain the allegations of the complaint
by a preponderance of the evidence. Knowledge is an indispensible prerequisite to
a finding of discrimination under the Act. The credible testimony of Personnel
Manager Lee and Superintendent of Operations Postlewaite that they were unaware
of Melvin Hull's union activity when he was selected for layoff and his name placed
on the layoff list has not been convincingly overcome by the General Counsel's
evidence. I conclude and find that the General Counsel has not sustained the allega-
tions of the complaint pertaining to the layoff of Melvin Hull by the requisite pre-
ponderance of the credible evidence. Accordingly, I shall recommend that those
allegations relating to Hull 's alleged , discriminatory discharge be dismissed.25
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in the
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As Respondent did not violate the Act in the discharge of Melvin Hull, I recom-
mend that as to this discharge the complaint be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of facts, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Screen Products Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. During September 1961, by (1) orally promulgating a rule prohibiting its
employees from engaging in discussion of union activities on its premises during
nonworking times; ( 2) threatening employees with being sent home if they wore
union badges; and (3) threatening employees with reprisals that it would close its
Chatsworth, Illinois, plant in the event the Union was selected as the employees'
bargaining representative , Respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and did
thereby violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
American Screen Products Company , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Prohibiting its employees from engaging in discussion of union activities
on Respondent 's Chatsworth , Illinois, premises or from enforcing any such existing
prohibition, unless the said prohibition is limited to the employees' working time.
(b) Prohibiting its Chatsworth , Illinois, plant employees from wearing union
badges, buttons, or insignia, threatening to send employees home or otherwise dis-
cipline them for so doing , thereby interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed.
=See Playbill Incorporated, 131 NLRB 592.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Threatening its employees with closing of its Chatsworth, Illinois, plant or
with other reprisals in the event the Union was selected as bargaining representative
for the employees.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post in its plant at Chatsworth, Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." 26 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the
Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith??
It is further recommended that unless Respondent shall within the prescribed
period notify the said Regional Director that it will comply, the Board issue an
Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
as If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "Pursuant to a Deci-
sion and Order."
2'' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce a rule prohibiting employees from engag-
ing in union activities on plant premises during their nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce a rule prohibiting employees from wearing
union badges, buttons, or other insignia, or threaten employees with being sent
home or with any other disciplinary action for violation thereof.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closing our Chatsworth, Illinois,
plant if International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is chosen as bargain-
ing representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members
of International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
AMERICAN SCREEN PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone Number, Central
6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.